pointless [balancing]

WorldconTROLL
25 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
edited July 9
that's really the only way to describe what is currently happening in this twisted game, I have no idea why it is so difficult for a triple a game and a team of pro developers to produce a game with even matches.

I get it some games you will lose and some you win, id understand a 750 to 1000 conquest beat down or a 600 to 1000 super unlucky match but what in gods name is this absolute train wreck of balancing, you guys apparently didn't have the brains to come up with a matchmaking system that simply takes the average kill per minute and score per minute of players to make balanced teams instead you all acted lazy and made a "behemoth super weapon" which first of all usually makes the losing team lose even more because Some noob who drives the vehicle 100km behind enemy lines with no support and as a player facing them they are a pain because much like the god horses the tanks which only fully armed assault players can seriously harm, bombers that nuke you from higher altitudes than the anti air can reach now we've got an invincible fortress on our tail and the spawns for some odd reason decide to keep placing you half way between flags in the middle of open ground with no cover.

Then on top of all this you knew the behemoths were trash and made the game lame so you then decided to sorta but not really "fix" match making my putting the auto team swap balancer which still is trash, I don't understand how a team can spend so much time money and effort into making even matches and yet 3 years into the game and I still find myself frequently getting spawn [trappd] for 20 min straight to have a match end (no joke) 400 to 1000  or vice versa 
Post edited by LOLGotYerTags on

Comments

  • LOLGotYerTags
    14359 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    @WorldconTROLL
    I've amended your thread title and part of your thread as the terms you used were inappropriate.

    Keep things relevant and appropriate please otherwise it may result in infractions moving forward.
  • Titan_Awaken
    1283 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 9
    Most AAA games don’t feature 64 player (or higher) modes like Battlefield does.

    The fact is that when you increase the number of players in a server, the harder it is to balance each match. Sure DICE could implement a matchmaking system that places players of similar levels, playtimes, KPM/SPM together but the tradeoff is that the matchmaking time to find 63 other players (of similar skill) will be significantly increased. Also this system is predicated on the idea that all players will use the Quick Match function to find games as opposed to the Server Browser (which simply is not true).

    Let’s forget about Battlefield for a moment to look at other genre of games that feature high playercounts in a single server: Battle-Royale. In a typical Battle-Royale game (think Fortnite, PUBG, Apex Legends etc), there are 100 players within a given server. Do you honestly believe that all 100 players are of equal or at least similar skill levels?

    I’ll answer that for you; No.

    Within a single BR server with 100 players, there are bound to be:

    1. Newbies who just installed the game.
    2. Tryhards and competitive players in it to win it.
    3. Casuals who just want to blow off some steam.
    4. Veterans who know the game like the palm of their hand.
    5. Any other miscellaneous groups that I may have missed (like Streamers and Content Creators for example).

    Now let’s go back to Battlefield. Given that there are 64 players in a single server, do you think it’s probable (big emphasis on this word) that all 64 players are of equal or similar skill levels?
    Post edited by Titan_Awaken on
  • Titan_Awaken
    1283 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 9
    But for the sake of the argument, let's assume you found a match of 64 perfectly equal skilled players. This still doesn't take into accouint external factors that may affect balance such as Quitters, AFKers, Team Switchers and so on.

    Edit: Oh and how could I forget? Platoons can sway the tide of a match as well!
    Post edited by Titan_Awaken on
  • Ronin9572
    1309 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Let's not forget this game is over 3 1/2 yrs old! And some of these players have played that whole time, or at least ALOT of that time. Ppl are still buying it so there's alot of new players as well. There's bound to be some one sided beat downs! But Titan got it right with his post
  • ashar_saleem121
    1391 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I've actually been seeing the opposite. I alot of really close games. The score would suggest the teams are balanced.

    Of course the way the game balances the teams it's usually our squad of 4 or 5 from our team trying to carry the rest of the 27 players to victory against the entire enemy team. Sometimes we manage to do it, sometimes we don't but the games have been super sweaty and super intense.
  • disposalist
    8956 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    I have some sympathy with the OP.  I am seeing matches get worse and worse balance.  Have seen some truly terrible one-siders recently.  1000-200ish.

    I love BF, but the balancer has always been criticised for not using decent metrics. From what I remember it uses only the last few matches and doesn't weight sensible stuff like SPM or take into account what maps/weapons/vehicles a player is good at and it could.

    I never used to believe the conspiracy theory type belief that the balancer follows an algorithm for 'player retention' sequences rather than plain consistent fairness, but I'm beginning to wonder.

    In my experience the biggest problem is team switching being allowed (to the winning team) and teams not getting shuffled/split even when one gets stacked with 150s.

    Games start badly balanced and don't get 'fixed' until one team is very quickly 100 down.

    Then players just give up and go sniper or mess around and make it worse. Not much the balancer can do about players not playing the objectives. The damage is done by then.

    It's disappointing, but you have to just hang in there - there will be good matches and they are worth it.
  • WetFishDB
    2329 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
     you guys apparently didn't have the brains to come up with a matchmaking system that simply takes the average kill per minute and score per minute of players 
    Actually, that IS kinda what the skill based balancing uses.  Skill is calculated based score per minute, kills per minute, and kill/death ratio, with each weighted differently.  Skill is used to balance the sides, within certain constraints... for example the game designers chose to keep squads together between rounds.

    Personally I don't think squads of randoms should be kept together, as that massively reduces the granularity of balancing to the hinderance of all - but I believe parties/platoons should stay together.  But either way its too late in the day now.
  • WetFishDB
    2329 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    that's really the only way to describe what is currently happening in this twisted game, I have no idea why it is so difficult for a triple a game and a team of pro developers to produce a game with even matches.

    I get it some games you will lose and some you win, id understand a 750 to 1000 conquest beat down or a 600 to 1000 super unlucky match but what in gods name is this absolute train wreck of balancing, you guys apparently didn't have the brains to come up with a matchmaking system that simply takes the average kill per minute and score per minute of players to make balanced teams instead you all acted lazy and made a "behemoth super weapon" which first of all usually makes the losing team lose even more because Some noob who drives the vehicle 100km behind enemy lines with no support and as a player facing them they are a pain because much like the god horses the tanks which only fully armed assault players can seriously harm, bombers that nuke you from higher altitudes than the anti air can reach now we've got an invincible fortress on our tail and the spawns for some odd reason decide to keep placing you half way between flags in the middle of open ground with no cover.

    Then on top of all this you knew the behemoths were trash and made the game lame so you then decided to sorta but not really "fix" match making my putting the auto team swap balancer which still is trash, I don't understand how a team can spend so much time money and effort into making even matches and yet 3 years into the game and I still find myself frequently getting spawn [trappd] for 20 min straight to have a match end (no joke) 400 to 1000  or vice versa 
    And the mid round balancer is more to balance the team numbers when there's a load of people who've quit - you can't blame dice for that kind of player behaviour.

    And really, if you are frequently finding yourself spawn trapped then I'd suggest you look at what YOU can do differently.  For example, make sure you don't zerg with players - make sure you defend flags further from spawn, flank etc etc. 
  • ashar_saleem121
    1391 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Actually, that IS kinda what the skill based balancing uses.  Skill is calculated based score per minute, kills per minute, and kill/death ratio, with each weighted differently.  Skill is used to balance the sides, within certain constraints... for example the game designers chose to keep squads together between rounds.

    Personally I don't think squads of randoms should be kept together, as that massively reduces the granularity of balancing to the hinderance of all - but I believe parties/platoons should stay together.  But either way its too late in the day now.

    Yeah but skill score only takes into account the previous 20 games or so. And HEAVILY relies on SPM which can be misleading. Support players usually have a higher SPM just by virtue of ammo ressupplies. TDM players have a very low SPM due to not having the extra points from objective captures and defense.

    Plus just walking on to empty caps and capping them gives you more points than kills and that's not a very good metric for how skilled a player is.

    Also, like I mentioned, your skill score is more like your current form. One bad game and it can drop precipitously.
  • CSO7777
    1845 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    The balancing has never worked in BF1. It has been bad from the launch of the game and they did the same in BFV (which is perhaps a little better balance-wise than BF1).

    BF4 has better balance on RSP-servers, each match can be unbalanced, but often they 'scramble' players between rounds, making things more equal in the end. BF1 (and BFV) doesn't move players as much and this often leads to game after game being really badly balanced.

    Team-switching in BF1 is abused a lot and makes matters even worse, and even though a lot of people defend the feature, it is not good for game balance.

    Just swapping teams randomly after each round, would be better than what we got today.
  • WetFishDB
    2329 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Actually, that IS kinda what the skill based balancing uses.  Skill is calculated based score per minute, kills per minute, and kill/death ratio, with each weighted differently.  Skill is used to balance the sides, within certain constraints... for example the game designers chose to keep squads together between rounds.

    Personally I don't think squads of randoms should be kept together, as that massively reduces the granularity of balancing to the hinderance of all - but I believe parties/platoons should stay together.  But either way its too late in the day now.

    Yeah but skill score only takes into account the previous 20 games or so. And HEAVILY relies on SPM which can be misleading. Support players usually have a higher SPM just by virtue of ammo ressupplies. TDM players have a very low SPM due to not having the extra points from objective captures and defense.

    Plus just walking on to empty caps and capping them gives you more points than kills and that's not a very good metric for how skilled a player is.

    Also, like I mentioned, your skill score is more like your current form. One bad game and it can drop precipitously.

    No approach is perfect, but I think Dice’s skill calculation is a reasonable approximation.

    It takes your skill from the last game and x0.1 and your previous skill by x0.9 and adds them together, so it’s relatively slow to change. Even if my skill was 750 before and I had a terrible game for some reason and it was only 300 in that round, my overall skill would only go down to 705 afterwards. And it should change a bit, maybe I’m using a different gun for a while, playing a different class - you wouldn’t want it to yo-yo.

    I agree supports get more points, but it’s only 60% of the weighting IIRC, and supports aren’t going to get that much more score for it to make that big a difference to the overall skill rating. Especially if they are laying on their belly or with a lower KPM etc.

    I agree game modes play a part on comparing individuals who main different modes. Ops will score more than Conquest which will score more than TDM etc. But most people don’t play a dozen games of one mode to skew their skill and then jump into a different mode and mess up the balance. Most people stick to a preferred mode and so comparison to their peers is fine, and those few that do jump around really aren’t likely to shift the balance in a game of Conquest.

    Walking onto flags is important in modes like Conquest. That’s why SPM is one of the better measures - but not in isolation. A Zerg is bad of course, but then the KPM tends to be lower with zergers (not enough kills to go around). KPM is pretty important too (30% of the skill calculation). So you need to score well and kill well - which kinda makes sense.

    I’ve yet to hear someone come up with a calculation that is unquestionably better at measuring someone’s ability against their peers - but really interested if you’ve got a better idea?
  • disposalist
    8956 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited July 10
    WetFishDB said:
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Actually, that IS kinda what the skill based balancing uses.  Skill is calculated based score per minute, kills per minute, and kill/death ratio, with each weighted differently.  Skill is used to balance the sides, within certain constraints... for example the game designers chose to keep squads together between rounds.

    Personally I don't think squads of randoms should be kept together, as that massively reduces the granularity of balancing to the hinderance of all - but I believe parties/platoons should stay together.  But either way its too late in the day now.

    Yeah but skill score only takes into account the previous 20 games or so. And HEAVILY relies on SPM which can be misleading. Support players usually have a higher SPM just by virtue of ammo ressupplies. TDM players have a very low SPM due to not having the extra points from objective captures and defense.

    Plus just walking on to empty caps and capping them gives you more points than kills and that's not a very good metric for how skilled a player is.

    Also, like I mentioned, your skill score is more like your current form. One bad game and it can drop precipitously.

    No approach is perfect, but I think Dice’s skill calculation is a reasonable approximation.

    It takes your skill from the last game and x0.1 and your previous skill by x0.9 and adds them together, so it’s relatively slow to change. Even if my skill was 750 before and I had a terrible game for some reason and it was only 300 in that round, my overall skill would only go down to 705 afterwards. And it should change a bit, maybe I’m using a different gun for a while, playing a different class - you wouldn’t want it to yo-yo.

    I agree supports get more points, but it’s only 60% of the weighting IIRC, and supports aren’t going to get that much more score for it to make that big a difference to the overall skill rating. Especially if they are laying on their belly or with a lower KPM etc.

    I agree game modes play a part on comparing individuals who main different modes. Ops will score more than Conquest which will score more than TDM etc. But most people don’t play a dozen games of one mode to skew their skill and then jump into a different mode and mess up the balance. Most people stick to a preferred mode and so comparison to their peers is fine, and those few that do jump around really aren’t likely to shift the balance in a game of Conquest.

    Walking onto flags is important in modes like Conquest. That’s why SPM is one of the better measures - but not in isolation. A Zerg is bad of course, but then the KPM tends to be lower with zergers (not enough kills to go around). KPM is pretty important too (30% of the skill calculation). So you need to score well and kill well - which kinda makes sense.

    I’ve yet to hear someone come up with a calculation that is unquestionably better at measuring someone’s ability against their peers - but really interested if you’ve got a better idea?
    And then the game starts 25 to 15 players. And 5 leave so it's 25 to 10. Then 3 join and get put on the larger side lol. And then the skill balanced folks start switching and leaving...
  • Tunza42
    38 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Sorry for my ignorance, but what is a Zerg?  I have heard the term a few times and have a rough idea but it seems to be used in different ways sometimes (im sure it will make more sense when I stop guessing the meaning lol).
    /
    Thanks
  • ashar_saleem121
    1391 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Tunza42 wrote: »
    Sorry for my ignorance, but what is a Zerg?  I have heard the term a few times and have a rough idea but it seems to be used in different ways sometimes (im sure it will make more sense when I stop guessing the meaning lol)./Thanks

    It means when the entire team is running around together capping the same flags instead of spreading out and trying to maintain map control
  • A_al_K_pacino_A
    1092 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Team balance only works as well as the players let it most of the time. As a solo player I'd be surprised if I get a squad leader giving orders 1/10 games and those getting followed is an even smaller fraction. Get a team of too many of these and one squad on the other team even partly organised would make a massive difference.
  • ashar_saleem121
    1391 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I've actually been seeing the opposite. I alot of really close games. The score would suggest the teams are balanced.

    Of course the way the game balances the teams it's usually our squad of 4 or 5 from our team trying to carry the rest of the 27 players to victory against the entire enemy team. Sometimes we manage to do it, sometimes we don't but the games have been super sweaty and super intense.

    Never mind. I take it all back. Today might have been the most lopsided stretch of games I've ever been a part of.

    We played 5 games of Operations, 3 attack, 2 defense. In the 3 offense games, we didn't lose a single Battalion through Oil of Empires once and Kaiser twice.

    On defense, we lost one sector on Conquer Hell and zero on Iron Walls.

    I don't know why the game didn't shake things up and I don't know why the enemy team didn't tap out.
  • wsupchris1222444
    956 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Any operations game I have played recently is usually a one sided blowout, the defending team is usually just sniping while the attacking team steamrolls by actually ptfo and not sniping or the other way around. In 2 weeks I've had 2 games that were close. Conquest is usually the same. In previous games a back cap was pretty effective in regaining control of the match but I've noticed in this game that back caps dont do jack but people keep on trying.

    I always see the team autobalancing in the chat box but it never seems to do anything, but I understand that a battlefield game is hard to balance, you got people joining through the browser, team switchers, quitters, entire squads of sweats, etc.

    The behemoths are really just a selling point of the game. What happens every time without fail is a noob or kill hoarder gets in the driver seat, doesnt move the thing anywhere near where it would be useful and rains mortars on the entire map leaving the rest of the gunners blue balled. The blimp never stands a chance, the train gets dukied on hard, the dreadnought fairs better but the driver camps in spawn most of the time. Funny enough I saw a guy that was sniping in the back of the map the entire game, he was going 4 and 13, as soon as he heard the train was inbound he rushed to the nearest jeep and drove to it to get in first, once he got it he did not move beyond F on giants shadow, he got 23 kills in it before the game ended.
  • WorldconTROLL
    25 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @WorldconTROLL
    I've amended your thread title and part of your thread as the terms you used were inappropriate.

    Keep things relevant and appropriate please otherwise it may result in infractions moving forward.
    @WorldconTROLL
    I've amended your thread title and part of your thread as the terms you used were inappropriate.

    Keep things relevant and appropriate please otherwise it may result in infractions moving forward.
    @WorldconTROLL
    I've amended your thread title and part of your thread as the terms you used were inappropriate.

    Keep things relevant and appropriate please otherwise it may result in infractions moving forward.

    Sure pall just make sure you show me where it states I can’t use the term ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ in the terms and conditions or whatever law book this site based it’s rules on.

  • LOLGotYerTags
    14359 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    The forum rules are clear as to what is and what is not allowed.

    I have been fair and edited your title for you in order to keep the thread within the confines of the forum rules,  But you aren't interested in fairness.

    Since you can't keep on topic and appropriate,  I have now locked this thread.
This discussion has been closed.